Awards

Sunday, September 16, 2007

More and more the media insists on repeating the number of soldiers killed in Iraq and emphasizing that more soldiers died in the War on Terror, than died during the attacks of September 11th. The message is meant to be that since more have died fighting the War on Terror, than died in the 9/11 attacks, that the War makes no sense.

On December 7th 1941, over 2400 people were killed. The United States lost nearly 300,000 men in WW2. Over a 100 times as many. If the reason for either war was to even out a balance sheet, so that it only made sense for as long as we had taken less casualties than we did in the original attack, our part in WW2 would have ended after a few months.

But it's the left's premise that is based on a fundamental incomprehension of war. The number of casualties you suffer in the opening attack are not the reason for the war. They are a wake up call that the enemy is here and the war has begun. The casualties of Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center occurred because the United States ignored growing threats. The casualties of the wars that began after them, were taken in fighting and defeating that threat.

3000 or 2400 dead is not the maximum total of casualties Japan or Al Queda was capable of inflicting upon us. It was the amount they inflicted upon us in that given attack. If we do not fight back, then the amount of casualties they can inflict upon us has no celling beyond our total population.

That is the nature of war. You either push back the enemy or sit there and take it. In the War on Terror, over a period of nearly half a decade, we took casualties equivalent to a single day in September. That is the difference between pushing back the enemy and sitting there and taking it. You either break the enemy or the enemy breaks you.

The left has spent a lot of time demonstrating that they're already broken and demanding that our government negotiate terms of surrender with the Palestinian terrorists, with Iran, with everyone in the world who hates us and wants to kill us. Their balance sheet argument underlies their inability to understand that the War on Terror is not a bloodsport, nor an act of vengeance or a balancing of the books, but a strategic campaign against an enemy force that is meant to destroy or contain it to prevent further attacks within our own borders.

11
comments:

Good post.People no longer care about the United States,not even the public servants who serve themselves alone.If you could resurrect a pioneer today and let them see what the nation has become in the minds of the people who just don't care, they would vomit.America has its own "mixed multitude" who never belonged here and still don't. They hate the values of our forefathers and they hate patriotism.These left minded liberals are cut from the same cloth as our enemies.They are our enemies today, more so than the terrorists are.

The current congress is almost going out of its way to undermine the War on Terror. But who afterall elected them into office? Liberal do-gooders who think suicide bombers and hijacked planes can be stopped with understanding, tolerance and humanitarian aid.

They continue to labor under the delusion that if show kindness to these monsters, like Androclese pulling the thorn out of the lion's paw, the lion will one day be mericiful to us.

Well, Androclese and the Lion is just a child's bedtime story. It might lull children to sleep but it shouldn't lull any adults with a mind and reason.

But you are right. Liberals want this to be a tit for tat war. You killed 3,000 of our people, we'll 3,000 of your and call it a day.

And at the same time, if the US even hinted at targeted assassinations the UN and every liberal in the US and Europe would be up in arms.

The object of war is to win and not leave any emenies standing. It's not just Iraq it's the other Muslim nations supporting Iraq.

Boker Tov,One thing that really frosts me is when people talk about blood, fighting, combat, and in the course of so doing, raise their "patriotic flags" and label others.

Let's make the point: How many of you have been in a sustained firefight in the service of the U.S. against an enemy? I have. I served ten years, with honorable discharge...straight "leg" infantry, then 82nd Airborne Division (2 years) and then as a Green Beret in 7th Special Forces Group (ABN).

Hey, Lemon, the "mixed multitude" you judged that doesn't "belong here" for their views? Guess what? They're citizens. I served ten years defending pinkos as such...but they have the right to say, to their views. That "pioneer" analogy doesn't fit in too well with the Native Americans, does it? The "noble pioneers" colonized and exploited, and the "forefathers" valued slaves and slavery.

Before you respond, show me your DD Form 214. Show me your service to the country (active duty) and your honorable discharge.

Those that do nothing are just as guilty of destroying this country by their complacency. The loud, aggressive "O'Reilly-ists" all have vaunted words and strong tones without ever serving this country a day in their lives. You think killing is good? War? Obviously you've never seen women,kids, and elderly non-combatants bleeding and dying.

You have the right to express your opinions, but before you criticize others and label them as unpatriotic,you should try serving the country with something more than words.

We live in a democracy and even if we didn't, a view doesn't become 'more right' because it has a service record behind it. If it did, we would simply vote for candidates based on their military record and Kerry would be President of the United States.

I respect your service, I don't respect your right to belittle other people in my comments section or to use that service record to batters others over the head with. And demanding the service record of a woman half your age is an egregiously stupid debate tactic.

My grandfather fought in WW1. My father fought in WW2. Both with distinction. They did not emphasize that or discuss it outside the family, even when they could have derived benefits from it. It was beneath their dignity. They had done what they had to do. That was enough.

Today's war isn't being fought on the front lines anymore. And it isn't being fought in uniforms. And the woman who is found with her throat cut in Detroit behind Habib's friendly local deli is as much a casualty of that war, even if she will not be recognized as such.

"That "pioneer" analogy doesn't fit in too well with the Native Americans, does it? The "noble pioneers" colonized and exploited, and the "forefathers" valued slaves and slavery."

They colonized yes, some exploited. Parts of the United States utilized slaves and slavery. The United States wasn't perfect but it was a country worth standing by in the minds of its citizens. Today that is increasingly no longer the case in the minds of much of the left and many democratic party politicians. And they have abandoned it and undermined it. That was Lemon's point and that is mine. And if you're going to argue against it, please cite actual proof and actual counter-arguments instead of online claims about a service record.

Daniel,I did not belittle anyone. The reason I took an aggressive stance is because it is incorrect to judge who does and who does not belong here on the basis of their beliefs. I already offered to correspond with you via mail, although you declined. I'll send you my documents. You may not even realize that you insulted me with the "online claim" comment. You also subtly alluded that because I discuss my service record it is beneath my dignity. Is it? You discussed your father's and grandfather's; I am thankful for their service. You didn't discuss your own. You posted a cartoon with the twin towers going down in smoke and flames. What I said was not sensationalistic in any regard. I didn't mention anything out of line. It would have been different if I recounted events in any detail.

In order to uphold democracy in a free society, all people must be heard, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them. She wrote "people no longer care about the United States, not even the public servants..." Don't you think that is too broad a generalization? That was an all-inclusive statement.

As I mentioned, I will send you written proof of my service if you wish. Then you don't have to make sarcastic comments such as the "online claims" one. You claimed that I belittled another, and in the same breath, belittled me. I didn't belittle anyone. I respect her right (and yours) to say what is on your mind.

She labeled the left-minded liberals as our enemies. I quote: "they are our enemies today, more so than the terrorists are." Not much of a democracy would exist if such thought became the norm.

What? C'mon, Daniel! More than the terrorists are? I beg to differ, Sir, and I happen to believe that flaming liberals are still citizens.

I disagree. I would say that someone who in a time of war proclaims that the enemy isn't Al Queda but the United States doesn't belong here. There is such a thing as differing views and there is such a thing as treason.

Lawyers like Lynn Stewart or Stanley Cohen, who openly admit that they identify with the views of their terrorist clients, don't belong here. And by here, I don't just mean the United States. No country in the long run can survive a political, judicial and academic elite that rejects its right to exist. Take a close look at Israel if you doubt that.

A country can survive an enemy. It cannot survive an elite that opens the gates to the enemy and welcomes them inside. History bears that out time and time again.

There is plenty of room for legitimate dissent. Legitimate dissent means debating policy. Illegitimate dissent means hating the country, despising it and siding with the enemy.

In the desert the mixed multitude took the first chance they could to corrupt Israel and create the Golden Calf. There are plenty of Golden Calves being created today.

No one is calling for an end to dissent but a society that can't recognize treason and condemn it for what it is, has no immunity against it.

I have little interest in acrimonious debates in the comments section. We are besieged by foes enough, without making foes of ourselves.

Can I just sneak a little comment in here? A great deal of Americans who haven't served in the military also serve the country in other ways--by voting, by serving on juries and not looking for frivolous ways to avoid it.

Sadly, many Americans forget that living in this country carries civic responsibilities such as voting and jury duty.

Compared to actual battle in times of war jury duty and voting are easy. Yet many avoid them like the plague. Look what you have sitting on some juries--people who acquit OJ Simpson of two counts of felony murder in three hours after a nine month long trial despite overwhelming DNA evidence. Or the idiots in one of Jack Kevorkian's trials who acquitted him because he had a near death experience and didn't think death was all that bad!

As for the low voter turnout...the current congress shows what happens when intelligent people don't show up on election day.